Problem solving

Thanks for your elaboration, @martine.

Just to clarify my prior point, though… There is no requirement for the elector to part with their pledge. My point was that regardless of the names that appears on the printed ballot, the party that receives the votes can have different names for their candidates and have their electors pledge to vote for those names.

Consider this scenario:

  • Jo’s name is on the printed ballot in a few weeks in states where ballots may already be printed
  • Jo withdraws and the LP replaces her with a different, eligible-for-office [new ticket]
  • The LP electors pledge to vote for this [new ticket]
  • Voters on election day vote for the Libertarian ballot line (which happens to still have Jo’s name)
  • The LP electors in the electoral college, having been activated by the voters selecting the Libertarian ballot item, cast their vote for the [new ticket]

In this way, the electors keep their pledge, electoral college access to the [new ticket] is preserved, and the physical ballot printing is irrelevant.

If you think I’ve gotten a detail of the process wrong, please let me know and let’s figure it out.


@vinney_cavallo @martine My bad. I knew where the number of electors in the electoral college came from, but not who. I also knew that state laws dictate how votes are allocated. I also knew about faithless electors who were punished. That was the depth of my understanding.

I did not know to what extent faithless electors are a concept or a practice or even legal.

1 Like

ASIDE: When I first became eligible to vote our state had a caucus system. So I know how a caucus system works and participated in local caucuses. The local caucus leader encouraged me to participate up the chain, so I understand how that operates too, but I declined the invitation. Later the primary system replaced it. I suspect, but do not know for sure, that the electoral college is like the caucus system that I understand.

We see this in practice in political conventions. In political conventions of long ago the clear winner was not always decided in advance. We saw this with democratic caucuses this election cycle. At each caucus location, if a candidate did not get a minimum percentage of voters, then those voters of ineligible candidates could then redistribute themselves to the remaining eligible candidates. Political conventions also operate in a similar fashion if no clear winner emerges on the first ballot.

I suspect that electoral college electors can vote their choice after the first ballot if no clear winner for president is achieved. Does anybody know if this is correct for electors of the electoral college?

If that is true… a coalition of third parties could challenge the duopoly. However most states are winner-take-all, which limits the potential for third party upsets. It would require a groundswell of voters to know a vote for X third party is a vote for Unity2020. Or if the winning candidate of any party is proven unfit (including dead) after the election, but before the electors cast their votes.

Stalemate Strategy


A candidate must receive an absolute majority of electoral votes (currently 270) to win the presidency or the vice presidency. If no candidate receives a majority in the election for president or vice president, the election is determined via a contingency procedure established by the Twelfth Amendment. In such a situation, the House chooses one of the top three presidential electoral vote winners as the president, while the Senate chooses one of the top two vice presidential electoral vote winners as vice president.

Due to winner-take-all a third party must win one or more states to defeat the duopoly at the electoral college level. Then it is up to the House and Senate.

1 Like

This is very insightful. Thanks!

I thought this video was interesting and I think this movement has already proven to have shown some cooperation capacity with those in power by having sit-downs and discussions and willingness with Crenshaw.

1 Like